Alterations of cardiac structure in patients with isolated office, ambulatory, or home hypertension - Data from the general population (Pressione Arteriose Monitorate E Loro Associazioni [PAMELA] Study)

Background-The prevalence and clinical significance of isolated office (or white coat) hypertension is controversial, and population data are limited. We studied the prevalence of this condition and its association with echoc ardiographic left ventricular mass in the general population of the PAMELA (Pressione Arteriose Monitorate E Loro Associazioni) Study. Methods and Results-The study involved a large, randomized sample (n=3200) representative of the Monza (Milan) population, 25 to 74 years of age. Part icipants in the study (64% of the sample) underwent measurements of office, home, 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure, and echocardiography. Isolated of fice hypertension was defined as systolic or diastolic values greater than or equal to 140 mm Hg or greater than or equal to 90 mm Hg, respectively. H ome and ambulatory normotension were defined according to criteria previous ly established from the PAMELA Study, for example, < 132/83 mm Hg (systolic /diastolic) for home and 125/79 mm Hg for 24-hour average blood pressure. T reated hypertensive subjects were excluded from analysis that was made on a total of 1637 subjects. Depending on normotension being established on sys tolic or diastolic blood pressure measured at home or over 24 hours, the pr evalence of isolated office hypertension ranged from 9% to 12%. In these su bjects, left ventricular mass index was greater (P <0.01) than in subjects with normotension both in and outside the office. This was the case also fo r prevalence of left ventricular hypertrophy. Left ventricular mass index a nd hypertrophy were similarly greater in subjects found to have normal offi ce but elevated home or ambulatory blood pressure (approximate to 10% of th e population). Conclusions-Isolated office hypertension has a noticeable prevalence in the population and is accompanied by structural cardiac alterations, suggestin g that it is not an entirely harmless phenomenon. This is the case also for the opposite condition, that is, normal office but elevated home or ambula tory blood pressure, which implies that limiting blood pressure measurement s to office values may not suffice in identification of subjects at risk.